Red light charge based on indirect evidence?

[evildrome]

I went through a light on a traffic light controlled roundabout. I was stopped by the traffic police and told that I had ran a red light because *their* light was green. They were waiting at the lights of the next junction of the roundabout.

 

As far as I'm concerned that's an inference based on an assumption.

 

If I'd been charged with a speeding offence they'd need to produce a calibration certificate for any equipment used to prove that charge.

 

As far as I'm aware, traffic lights do not come with calibration certificates.

 

Is this worth defending in court? At the moment I'm looking at 3 points & 60 pounds.

 

I have no points on my licence.

 

Thanks!

[dx100uk]

well did you?

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I believe it is safe to assume that on a road layout described that if the oncoming traffic has a green light the opposing traffic must have red, otherwise there would be serious consequences.

[crem]

I doubt very much that anyone will believe your claim that both lights were showing green at the same time!!

 

Depending on the speed of the road, the time delay between yours switching to red and the other light switching to green can be quite substancial. i.e. the greater the road speed limit the longer the lights tend to overlap for safety. showing both RED, but never both GREEN.

 

Also, you claim it would be "indirect" evidence, however, at the majority of these type of roadabout traffic lights, it is perfectly possible for the police officer to have been able to see one or more of the lights that are positioned for you and for him to see your light change to amber then red, before his changed to red/amber then green. Indeed as a driving instructor we actively encourage pupils to glance an eye at the "other driver's light" as it increases their "prep time" in anticipating their light changing to green.

 

In my experience, far too many drivers treat the amber light (and even a second or 2 of the red) as a licence to jump the lights especially at these light controlled roundabout systems.

 

In my view the road planners are too quick at using these systems when they are not necessary which aggrivates us all. eg a system near me claims to be "part time" lights yet are on between 6am and 10pm 7 days a week which most of us would pretty much class as full time! They are even on at 2 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon when there is bot all traffic going through that roundabout. However, although I think they are unnecessary at certain times, that doesn't mean I can ignore them as I choose, as that is downright dangerous especially if the car coming from the direction of the police car also "over-anticipated" the fact his light was about to go green. Remember the good old "amber-gambler" adverts they used to run on tele?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Highway Code Amber = STOP.

[MrHat]

Not worth defending imo unless you are absolutely convinced you have done no wrong. Judge unlikely to let you off based on your opening post alone imo

[crem]

I think what they would also be able to produce, if you disputed the offence, would be the fault log for the lights from the highway authority showing there was no faults reported for a reasonable length of time before or after your incident, and also the documented timings of how the lights are sequenced to switch.

 

eg the settings will show exactly that your amber was on for 2.1 seconds then showed red and the light where the police car was showed red for a further 0.8 seconds, then showed red&amber for 1.2 seconds before switching to green.

[dx100uk]

i find it strange to OP logged off one mins after posting the thread

and has never returned....

 

dx

[evildrome]

Do you stay up much after 00:45? No. I don't either.

 

Anyway, to the matter in hand, it was dark, it was raining, I can't say definitely what the light was.

 

Case closed you'd think. Except there was a bus right in front of me. Professional drivers tend not to run lights.

 

And that set of lights is know locally to be flaky.

 

TBH I'll probably just put my hand up to this as I can't say for sure what the status of the light was.

 

The balance of probabilites is that I did run a red light but thats not how the law works. You can't convict someone because "it seems likely".

 

You need actual proof.

[queensclose]

Do you stay up much after 00:45? No. I don't either.

 

The balance of probabilites is that I did run a red light but thats not how the law works. You can't convict someone because "it seems likely".

 

You need actual proof.

 

the proof is the police. there saying that the light was on green. if your right then it wont be long before there's gonna be an accident at the roundabout

magistrates see this day in and day out.

do you feel you can convince them

[queensclose]

Do you stay up much after 00:45? No. I don't either.

 

Anyway, to the matter in hand, it was dark, it was raining, I can't say definitely what the light was.

 

 

 

.

driving without due care and attention

[crem]

Anyway, to the matter in hand, it was dark, it was raining, I can't say definitely what the light was.

Of course you should be able to say what the light was. You should have ensured you could see the lights to so that you could make an informed decision as to proceed or not.

 

Case closed you'd think. Except there was a bus right in front of me. Professional drivers tend not to run lights.

and professional (competant) drivers would have increased the distance from the bus to improve their visibility of any hazard

 

And that set of lights is know locally to be flaky.

flaky? expand please. Are you suggesting the green phases overlap, coz that would be resulting in crashes every day of the week I am sure

 

TBH I'll probably just put my hand up to this as I can't say for sure what the status of the light was.

Same as above.... Of course you should be able to say what the light was. You should have ensured you could see the lights to so that you could make an informed decision as to proceed or not.

 

The balance of probabilites is that I did run a red light

yep!

but thats not how the law works. You can't convict someone because "it seems likely".

as several people have already implied, this is much more definate than "it seems likely"

 

You need actual proof.

then you can refute the charge and await whatever "proof" the police can present. I think my earlier post would be near the mark of what proof they can present.

 

..

[dx100uk]

most buses have CCTV

 

you could ask to see that

 

just bear-in-mind the professional driver might well have increased speed to safely get through as

he could not brake hard for YOUR sake [p'haps you were too close to him]

and for passenger safety.

following him through the lights was not a good idea

 

weighing up the additional info you have provided now

 

i would guess as crem hints, that there is more to this than meets the eye.

p'haps the police were also or did also comment[ing] upon your whole driving manner.

 

the only thing to stick on you, was the red light incident.

 

dx

[evildrome]

I am going to take professional advice on this. I've got a clean licence & I can afford a few bob to defend it.

 

I'll let you know the outcome.

[crem]

please post the outcome of this advise as we will find it interesting I'm sure.